Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 7352163" data-attributes="member: 23751">[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is constantly talking about the DM railroading(being unprincipled) the players by giving them choose your own adventure novels to play in, which doesn't at all describe our style of game play.&nbsp; And when challenged about players abusing their authorial powers, people on his side of things(can't remember if he's done it or not, but [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has) fall back on the social contract(being principled) preventing players from doing that.&nbsp; I'm just saying that the social contract(principled) argument works for both playstyles.&nbsp; This I take exception to a little bit.&nbsp; We aren't countering with &quot;CHARACTERS are fictionally not depicted as being forced to do something,&quot;.&nbsp; They are not ever forced to do something unless some game mechanic or game play dictates it, like being imprisoned or a domination spell.&nbsp; That and &quot;their choices appear meaningful from character stance&quot;.&nbsp; Their choices are meaningful.&nbsp; You don't have to have authorial power to make a meaningful character decision.&nbsp; Moral dilemmas and character growing roleplay/situations come up very often in my games.&nbsp; Often where I had no idea they would be there.&nbsp; Lastly, my game never, EVER boils down to players &quot;only choosing between the GM's options&quot; or being &quot;dependent on the GM to address their agenda,&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; They dictate it to me.&nbsp; While I prepare things in advance, they can go with those things or strike off on their own whenever they wish.&nbsp; Once they walked into a town and barbarian tribes in the north were mentioned in passing.&nbsp; One player decided his PC wanted to go take one over and become chief.&nbsp; The other players supported him and off they went away from what I had prepared.&nbsp; It was great.&nbsp; Most of my game is reacting to what they do, not proactively directing them with any sort of agenda of my own.&nbsp; They choose their agenda and go for it.&nbsp; They may or may not succeed, and in this case the PC did succeed, but they dictated that agenda to me and did not at all choose between GM options.The player is partially dependent on the DM only in so far as the DM will come up with ways for the player to attempt success and possibly fail to achieve the player's agenda.&nbsp; If the player is abiding by the social contract(being principled), then they aren't going to attempt agendas that are wildly inappropriate, such as putting together a nuclear warhead and missile to launch at Waterdeep.&nbsp; Outside of inappropriate agendas, the DM has an obligation not to say no or set up the world to outright thwart the attempt, so the players are free to pursue their agendas without fear that the DM will be unprincipled AND knowing that they are not dependent on the DM for those agendas to come into being.&nbsp; The players are the ones who dictate the agendas.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 7352163, member: 23751"] [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is constantly talking about the DM railroading(being unprincipled) the players by giving them choose your own adventure novels to play in, which doesn't at all describe our style of game play. And when challenged about players abusing their authorial powers, people on his side of things(can't remember if he's done it or not, but [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has) fall back on the social contract(being principled) preventing players from doing that. I'm just saying that the social contract(principled) argument works for both playstyles. This I take exception to a little bit. We aren't countering with "CHARACTERS are fictionally not depicted as being forced to do something,". They are not ever forced to do something unless some game mechanic or game play dictates it, like being imprisoned or a domination spell. That and "their choices appear meaningful from character stance". Their choices are meaningful. You don't have to have authorial power to make a meaningful character decision. Moral dilemmas and character growing roleplay/situations come up very often in my games. Often where I had no idea they would be there. Lastly, my game never, EVER boils down to players "only choosing between the GM's options" or being "dependent on the GM to address their agenda,". They dictate it to me. While I prepare things in advance, they can go with those things or strike off on their own whenever they wish. Once they walked into a town and barbarian tribes in the north were mentioned in passing. One player decided his PC wanted to go take one over and become chief. The other players supported him and off they went away from what I had prepared. It was great. Most of my game is reacting to what they do, not proactively directing them with any sort of agenda of my own. They choose their agenda and go for it. They may or may not succeed, and in this case the PC did succeed, but they dictated that agenda to me and did not at all choose between GM options. The player is partially dependent on the DM only in so far as the DM will come up with ways for the player to attempt success and possibly fail to achieve the player's agenda. If the player is abiding by the social contract(being principled), then they aren't going to attempt agendas that are wildly inappropriate, such as putting together a nuclear warhead and missile to launch at Waterdeep. Outside of inappropriate agendas, the DM has an obligation not to say no or set up the world to outright thwart the attempt, so the players are free to pursue their agendas without fear that the DM will be unprincipled AND knowing that they are not dependent on the DM for those agendas to come into being. The players are the ones who dictate the agendas. [/QUOTE]

Verification